Nelson Kloosterman, professor of Ethics and New Testament Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is laying it on thick in a series for Christian Renewal, a Dutch-Canadian Reformed news and opinion magazine. The series is entitled, “The Bible, The Church, and the World: A Third Way.” In it, Kloosterman attempts to forge a middle ground between theonomy on the one side and two-kingdom theology on the other. Dr. K tips his hand by calling two-kingdom advocates such as Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D. G. Hart “religious secularists.” (“Secular” is to “secularism” what “behavior” is to “behaviorism” or what “material” is to “materialism.”)
In his most recent articles, Dr. K. has taken a detour into the subject of Christian schooling (though the skeptic might wonder if Kloosterman determined to go after two kingdom theology specifically to score points in current debates within the URC about requirements for church officers to support and send their children to Christian day schools). Three of the articles in what is so far a fourteen-part series in this interlude on Christian education are called, “Mandate or Millstone: The URC and Christian Education.”
Several aspects of Kloosterman’s arguments are highly objectionable even if predictable among neo-Calvinists and their theonomic cousins. First, he engages in fear mongering. In addition to using “religious secularism” instead of “paleo-Calvinism,” “two kingdom theology,” or “Reformed confessionalism” – all terms or phrases that would be less provocative – Dr. K. invokes “Lutheran” to show that his adversaries are not Reformed. I am not sure when “Lutheran” became a four-letter word, but a time existed when the Dutch Reformed recommended Lutheran churches to Dutch Calvinists who could not find a Reformed church if moving to a new location or while traveling. In addition, he asserts that public schooling is “the most consistent” option for two-kingdom proponents. Mentioning public schools is always like throwing a piece of red meat to the opponents of “Heather Has Two Mommies” or “Gay-Lesbian-Transgender” Month at Ralph Waldo Emerson Junior High. Dr. K. also alleges that two-kingdom advocates oppose “the validity of Christian schools.” Huh? I know of several professors at a certain seminary in the southwestern region of the United States who argue for the two-kingdom view, are strong Klineans, send their children to Christian schools, and even serve on the board of a Christian day school. But Dr. K. does not let facts get in the way of a good two-kingdom scare; many godly Reformed Christians believe in Christian schools and assume that anyone who does not share this belief is an enemy or worse, a liberal.
And this is exactly the problem with Dr. K.’s argument. He says he is offering a third way. But on Christian schools he offers only two options – either Millstone or Mandate. The two-kingdom view is actually a third way, one that neither sees Christians schools as a rock or a hard place.  In the two-kingdom scheme as it is in the sphere sovereignty outlook, education is the responsibility of parents, and they need to have wisdom about how best to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For some children a Christian school is a welcome alternative, especially for those whose parents have the means to afford tuition. For other children, home schooling is the best option. For others still, public schooling is the most conducive to the circumstances of a family in a particular community. In all of these cases, parents cannot turn over their kids to the teacher and let educators do the vital work that God assigns to parents, namely, to pass on the faith once delivered. But saying that God requires parents to pass on the faith is not the same thing as saying that God requires Christians schools for those who would be officers in the church. It’s akin to saying because God opposes injustice, he hates capitalism. Capitalism may be what I hate, and I may desire to have God on my side, but I need to fill in a few premises before getting to the conclusion involving God’s will.
In fact, the greatest weakness of Dr. K’s scare tactics is his lack of a remotely exegetical argument for Christian schooling. It is clear from Scripture that parents need to rear their children in the faith. But it is not clear from Scripture that universal education is the norm for God’s people, or that parents even need to make sure Johnny and Susie can read, write, and know the multiplication tables. In fact, the very idea of universal education is a recent phenomenon in the West. In which case, Dr. K. uncharitably condemns most of the saints living before 1900 for being delinquent in his Christian education “mandate.”
Dr. K. even seems to be aware of the wobbliness of his argument. At one point he concedes that “worldview Calvinism did not exist as such in the seventeenth century.” That would be one reason for calling his version of Calvinism “neo” and the two-kingdom version “paleo.” But this does not stop him from claiming that on the basis of Dutch Reformed history, Christian schooling is a mandate for the URC.
Even so, without a biblical mandate, Dr. K.’s argument is unReformed and violates Christian liberty. It subjects saints to the doctrines and commandments of men. It is another case of establishing a norm, not on the basis of “thus, saith the Lord” but on the zeal of pious intentions. The fundamentalist thinks that he knows that smoking destroys the temple of the Holy Spirit so he believes that all Christians should abandon tobacco products. The Pharisees knew that adding a few extra statutes – they took some cues from Eve here – would help to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath. Likewise, Dr. K. thinks Christian schools are good for his children, he knows that his parents and grandparents thought the same, and so he makes Christian education a mandate for all Reformed Christians (why he spends so much time going after Orthodox Presbyterians is a real conundrum).
So, the neo-Calvinist aim of redeeming all of creation winds up once again ending up in polarities rather than a middle way. You are either with him or against him. The neo-Calvinist invariably leaves no room for Christian liberty, wisdom or goodness. It is all either mandated or licentious, intelligent or stupid, holy or profane. Thankfully, the two-kingdom view allows for a less strident assessment of Dr. K. He is not as wise as we would like, but we concede his intentions are good. We wish his worldview would allow him to say the same of us.
177 Comments
Dr. Hart,
I’m just glad someone with academic credentials admitted that I’m not crazy.
E
Zrim, if I thought for one instant that you were not intellectually capable of reading carefully, I wouldn’t have said anything. But you are quite capable — you write test questions for an educational testing service, for crying out loud.
Or if I thought you were an incorrigible jerk, I wouldn’t have said anything. But you aren’t.
I expressed an ongoing offense here that is interfering with our ability to discuss charitably. I’ve (mostly) ignored it, but I really have gotten to the point where my options are to (a) say something or to (b) shake my head and walk away.
When you, a very bright person, twist my statements into knots, it comes across as an expression of contempt.
When you make jokes at my expense, it comes across as contempt. In my Southern upbringing, funny jokes are ones made at one’s own expense; jokes at someone else’s expense are deliberate insults. I’ve tried to play along a bit (When in Rome…), but it actually grates pretty harshly.
When you diagnose my Real Problems across the Internet, it comes across as contempt.
When you are unable to even offer a small apology for your misreadings, it comes across as contempt.
The persona I encounter here (which is likely different from the real Steve Zimrich) treats me as an inferior whose statements are not worthy of careful consideration, and I’m having trouble being in charity.
Especially when you assign me 30+ page reading assignments (although the Ken Meyers article is quite good…).
Where do we go from here?
Sincerely,
Jeff Cagle
Jeff,
Perhaps we take it off-line? I’m not much for airing the sorts of grievances you are suggesting publically. I will say that I feel your pain when it comes to these blessed forums and things not translating the way we always intend. (If you’d like to take it off line, leave your addy in the next response.) But my responses to you are honest, even if tempered with some cheek. I really do see problems in your statements.
I am saying that I am glorifying God as I either struggle through or happily pursue calculus. What you seem to be saying is that my glorifying God is relative to my passion. I am saying that everything a believer does glorifies God because of faith, the only qualifier being that the thing is lawful. You seem to be suggesting that what a believer does is probably really only glorifying God more if it’s enjoyed, etc. I perceive things much more categorical than that. I’d like to glorify God doing calculus with a smile, but I can’t. Now what? I take comfort knowing that “my” faith is actually what glorifies God, not my disposition. What you suggest seems to also deny my varied and complex humanity.
I don’t doubt your sincerity, and I’m sure I don’t project as much charity or respect as I might like.
If you would like to go offline, my email is
jr + last name (at) juno [dot] com.
Jeff Cagle
Jeff,
You have correctly described what interacting with Zrim is often like. Others, including me, have tried to point that out to him, to no avail.
My advice – don’t bother. The blogging medium tends in this direction anyway.
Echo
Jeff, don’t bother: have you noticed that both Hart and Zrim have responded to you using fictional examples from TV to show us what the real world is like? And they wonder why we don’t them seriously when it comes to philosophy!
Josh, so nice of you to show up at the party late, and then crash. You may notice that the discussion started with a biblical case for Christian schooling. I know you like philosophy and all. Then again, I don’t know of too many philosophers who are theonomists.
Actually, Zrim just sent me a
nicekind note and I look forward to returning to our regularly scheduled dispute (!)JRC
Could he write one to me and sign it for Josh Smith?
He could, but then he’d also have to do that for lots of others, and he doesn’t really have that sort of disposable time.
boo hoo.
Oops, left a sentence hanging. “So bad plumbing, if intentional, is an action that is covered by the 9th commandment as well as the 8th.”
Intentionally bad plumbing is a moral failing, not because of abilities, but because it is not of faith and the love that flows from that faith.
Unintentionally bad plumbing, on the other hand, would not be a moral failing.
Negligently bad plumbing, on the third hand, would be.
I still want to make the point about what it means to live by faith:
I agree that in the course of plumbing if one lies, steals or bears false witness it is a moral failure and is not of faith.
But “negligently bad plumbing†seems a lot like my bad math skills, and I have hard time saying my poor math performance is somehow a moral failing, Jeff.
If I cheat on my exam that is a moral failure, but is slacking on my studying, not quite “pursuing it with passion†and getting a D really the same thing? Should I be disciplined for my slack studying or for my cheating on the test, or both? Can I not still glorify God when I’m a bad math student and not glorify God when I cheat, or does glorify mean “only when I’m a passionate winnerâ€? Can losers and slackers still be said to live by faith and glorify God?
(For any who might be wondering: NT Greek is a math course, despite its being listed as a language course. I like to think that my in and out efforts at it were always God glorifying, though Jefferey A.D. Weima might be tempted to think otherwise.)
Best wishes on the Greek. I agree: it’s a lot more analytic than English.
As it turns out, I take the opposite approach — “math” is a language that we use to model and manipulate the physical world (and the structure of ideas, taking “logic” to be a subset of math).
Zrim, I can’t speak to your particular math situation because I don’t know it. But in general, would you not say that sloth is a sin? Surely I got that impression from reading Proverbs rather than from my non-existent Catholic upbringing.
Hey, we have common ground. WooHoo!
JRC
I almost overlooked — Should we be disciplined for slacking? I think there are a lot of sins that we are not disciplined for; that’s a part of what it means to “not be under the Law.”
So we can’t move from “shouldn’t be disciplined for” to “isn’t a sin.”
JRC
Jeff,
It seems clear that sloth is a sin. But I’m not sure that what I am describing is sloth, but rather struggle as opposed to victory (yes, I am hinting that this may have a lot to do with struggling with indwelling sin than being victorious over it–and my understanding of sin is more organic than therapeutic, which is to say, God confroms us to the image of Jesus, not more excited or studious students).
I still want to know if one of faith can be said to be glorying God even when he doesn’t pursue something very good with passion.
And I’m not sure that escaping discipline has as much to do with “not being under law (but under grace)” so much as the difficulties involved with disciplining private indwelling sin and those done outwardly in the body (and mind). Your formula could be a recipie for antinomianism.
Can one of faith be said to be glorifying God if he does not pursue something very good with passion?
Hm. Isn’t it rather that whatever God sets before us — our calling — is what we should do with passion? Or more Biblically, with heart, soul, mind, and strength?
There are too many good things out there for us to be responsible for all of them, “with passion.” Faraday taught himself chemistry. These days, a professional chemist can only know one small corner of the discipline, after graduate study.
So yes, it’s acceptable, I think, to decide that math is not your calling (can’t believe I’m writing this …
). But having been called to math (say, as a high-school student), it would be sinful to blow it off in favor of other priorities that one is *not* called to.
Speaking of .. I have have parking-lot duty.
JRC
Isn’t it rather that whatever God sets before us — our calling — is what we should do with passion? Or more Biblically, with heart, soul, mind, and strength?
But, as much as math isn’t my calling, one of my callings is as a husband and father. And I have days of passion and fatigue (and indifference). And most days I can’t say that I have lived up to this vocation with all my heart, soul, strength and mind. I think you’re reading my point about being frail as to mean “blowing something off.” Again, I’m not suggesting sloth. Sloth would be neglecting my family, rather than just trying to breathless keep up with them. It sounds like you are suggesting my frailty is sloth is sin. Yeow.
No, no, no. Not at all. I’m suggesting that if math isn’t your calling, then you can walk away in a good conscience. But if or when it is, then all oars out.
JRC
And in particular, if it comes to “math or family”, we both know which one has priority.
Jeff,
What is happening on my husbanding and fathering days when all my proverbial oars aren’t out? Am I still doing these things in faith, or would you describe it differently (like, sort of in faith but not as in faith as on my better days)? I say the former.
And as long as you are bringing up priority in vocations, yes, I am a hopeless family man (the upper midwest does that). But I also think our vocations are in constant flux and competition with each other, and I don’t think that is a bad thing at all. Sometimes family wins, sometimes it suffers sacrifice. Same for other vocations.
What happens on the days when I’m not loving God with heart, soul, mind, and strength; and my neighbor as myself?
I think on those days (read: every day), I’m revealing just how deep the rabbit hole called “sin nature” goes.
I don’t know whether we’re describing the same phenomenon; obviously, we get tired and stuff. Among other things, I think that’s why the “rest” part of Sabbath-keeping is really important.
But I do think that the command to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” is deliberately open-ended and calibrated above our level to actually accomplish; not (as the liberals would have it) so that we keep striving, but rather to reveal just what it means to be a sinner.
JRC
Careful, Jeff, now you’re starting to sound way less New School than all that “passion” jazz seemed to imply (liberals strive, New Schoolers pursue with passion). You even used the s-word a couple of times, and in ways that might go as deep as total depravity aims.
Maybe my kind note helped? Who’d'a thunk?
Darryl, you give an example of how the term neocalvinist is applied outside meaningful restriction. OK. Did you know that, historically, the term has also been applied to Barthians as a sort of synonym for neo-orthodoxy? The term has now been misapplied to predestinarian baptists of various sorts too.
Well, some people might refer to Darryl Hart as an Evangelical. It might even appear in print somewhere. I’m not unaware that the label neocalvinist has been given various misapplications, but we orthodox “Kuyperians” (who are also confessionally reformed) are not letting it go. What the Lord Jesus says of creation’s every square inch, we say of the term neocalvinist.
You can discern how we are using the term by how we define it.
The distinction Calvin makes in Institutes, II.2.13 is not at all problematic for neocalvinists. If, however, one was to confuse Calvin’s pragmatic use of the terms for Paul’s use of ‘earthly’ as sin vs. ‘things above’ (e.g. Colossians 3), then you have the antithesis, and not the distinction Calvin is making here. In any case, nothing in Calvin’s distinction or his treatment of the issue precludes a Christian cultivation of earthly things (e.g., liberal arts, etc).
As to our undisputed and unembarrassed use of the prefix “neo,” we hold this in terms of a (non-ecclesial, non-theological) worldview and social philosophy indicating a consistent, but genuine development in Calvinistic thinking along these lines (e.g. sphere sovereignty). In things ecclesial and confessional, we simultaneously and without tension hold to the prefix “paleo” (even though, like you, many of us hold to the 1789 American Revision).
Yes, I can see how my approach here lacks certain qualifications. I think I’ll come back to that point when I finish digesting Ken Myers.
Still, I want to emphasize that zeal (“passion”) in executing one’s calling is laudable, not contemptible, under the aegis of faith. It is eminently Scripture and has Reformed historical precedent. To use an old-school term, I care not one whit whether it make me New-Schooly or not.
Can call this a point of common ground also?
JRC
Still, I want to emphasize that zeal (â€passionâ€) in executing one’s calling is laudable, not contemptible, under the aegis of faith. It is eminently Scripture and has Reformed historical precedent. To use an old-school term, I care not one whit whether it make me New-Schooly or not.
Can call this a point of common ground also?
I hope I never conveyed that passion is contemptible under the aegis of faith (since God made passion, it’s quite laudable, or “very good”). I just take issue with it being normative to living by faith, especially given that my humanity as a sinner is just way more complex than that.
But, for my part, I’m doing all I (miserably) can to be faithful to the Old School, so, where you may not, I do care a few whits about these distinctions and which school recongizes me as a student–I’ve paid good money in tuition fees.
2 Trackbacks
[...] May 3, 2009 in Reformed Ethics, Two kingdoms | Tags: christian education, Two kingdoms, URCNA Nelson Kloosterman, professor of Ethics and New Testament Studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, is laying it on thick in a series for Christian Renewal, a Dutch-Canadian Reformed news and opinion magazine. The series is entitled, “The Bible, The Church, and the World: A Third Way.†In it, Kloosterman attempts to forge a middle ground between theonomy on the one side and two-kingdom theology on the other. Dr. K tips his hand by calling two-kingdom advocates such as Misty Irons, Meredith Kline, and D. G. Hart “religious secularists.†(â€Secular†is to “secularism†what “behavior†is to “behaviorism†or what “material†is to “materialism.â€) Read more» [...]
[...] David Gordon calls is a distraction from orthodoxy. I call it educational legalism. Darryl Hart responds to Nelson Kloosterman and suggests the latter. Granted, I still want to know from fellow two-kingdomites the answer to this question: if there is [...]